The Iron Chariot

Commies are funny

2008-05-24T20:13:00.000-07:00

Commies are funny

Very rarely do I ever find a story on CNN.com that causes me to crack up uncontrollably for a sustained period of time. This one however has.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/24/russia.indiana.jones.ap/index.html

the long and short is the Russian Communist Party’s (yes they still exist) outrage over the portrayal of the communists as the bad guys of new Indiana Jones movie.

The Communists claim that the movie “aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.” I don’t think any American will lose sleep over undermining an enemy we’ve already defeated and as for distorting history… movies that have supernatural arcs that explode Nazi’s (no matter how cool that was) or ancient alien artifacts that suck commie’s into space are not really concerned with historical accuracy. It’s a fun movie and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing an American movie hero back on the big screen.

Going Away For the Weekend

2008-05-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

I'll be on a four day backpacking trip in the Gila Wilderness starting tomorrow, so you won't hear anything from me. I just didn't want the three people who might read this to think I've disappeared again.

However, I am looking forward to getting away from political news for a few days. I can't take it anymore.

One More Reason to Despise Hillary Clinton

2008-05-22T12:53:00.000-07:00

I fully intended to write something completely unrelated to the Democratic nomination, but then Hillary Clinton came out yesterday and said something so mind-numbingly stupid, I couldn't just pretend like she hadn't said one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever heard come from a politician's mouth (that's right, I said it).

Before we get to the stupid, let's see where Clinton stood on the issue back when the DNC decided to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates for breaking the Party's rules concerning primary dates. This is from a campaign statement from last September that still resides on Clinton's website:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

However, while campaigning in Florida yesterday, Clinton compared the DNC's decision to denying women's sufferage and civil rights. Then the real jaw-dropper came when she compared it to Zimbabwe's political woes:

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," Clinton explained. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,”

My first question is: where was all this outrage about voter disenfanchisement when she blessed off on the DNC's decision? If nothing else, these are outrageously hypocritical statements from a politician whose desperation for power has reached sickening heights. Second...I'm not even going to waste time pointing out how this is nothing like any of the instances Clinton referred to. The voters of Michigan and Florida knew going in that their votes would not count, which undoubtedly altered the results. If the voters of the states want to hold someone responsible, the fault lies with the members of their respective state Democratic parties who decided to break the rules int he first place. However, if the DNC is at any fault here, then just as much fault lies at Clinton's feet because she agreed to it at the time.

Besides, what about the poor voters in Michigan who wanted to vote for the Democrat candidates besides Clinton, but couldn't because Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot? If Clinton is such a great champion for voter rights, then when is she going to start fighting them?

And just to think, there was a time when I thought a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a good thing. Now I don't think she's even fit to serve in public office.

Cause for concern in the Obama camp

2008-05-22T12:17:00.000-07:00

A recent interview on MSNBC and article at CNN.com concerning the Obama’s search for a running mate has caused enough consternation in me I feel the need to comment.

It is most unfortunate that I cannot remember the name of the man being interviewed on MSNBC, honestly it was just kinda on in the background while I played a computer game. But here is what the unknown brilliant man said…

“Does anyone really believe that Obama’s selection of a VP candidate will definitely deliver a swing state or demographic group? Honestly does anyone really think Hilary supporters will simply jump on board with Obama if he takes her as a VP candidate?”

Let me tell you about an observation I have about VP candidates. They can only hurt you. People are not going to like you more because some one else they like is playing second fiddle to you. The historic job of the VP has been the “hatchet man,” the one who does the dirty work, says the slightly taboo thing for shock value. The best VP’s have done this. Dismantled the others camps, attacked their credibility, their backgrounds, and all the things that would be beneath the primary candidate. Failed campaigns commonly had poor VPs. I am not sure if the Obama camp has acknowledged this fact.

My concern increased because of the following article by CNN.

“A veteran Democratic activist told CNN that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson has accepted Obama's request to begin a screening and selection process for the No. 2 spot.
Johnson performed a similar role for Democratic presidential nominees Walter Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.”

Why exactly is Obama choosing as his lead screener a man who selected VP’s for two LOSING democratic tickets.

Previously I have privately credited the Obama camp with being extraordinarily well run… but the choice of VP screener certainly doesn’t instill confidence. John Edwards is a great guy, a good hatchet man for Kerry he was not. And while the choice of the first female VP candidate for Mondale was ground breaking, she could do nothing to dent Reagan’s armor.

Obama is a nice guy. He needs a strong VP candidate who will pull no punches to save their own political futures. He needs a hatchet man to do the dirty work. Failure to do so is another weakness the Obama camp cannot afford.

Hillary Clinton's Continued Descent Towards Insanity

2008-05-21T07:26:00.000-07:00

You know, there was once a time when I would have happily supported Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. Sure, she was never my first choice, but I certainly agreed with her on virtually all of her policy stances. Then she became a sore loser and started acting like a Republican. Whether it was throwing out the idea that white people won't vote for Obama (even though he has trounced Clinton in the mostly white Midwest) or threatening to obliterate Iran, she has amazed me with her growing disconnect from reality and reason.

The simple fact remains that Hillary Clinton is losing by every possible metric, delegates, superdelegates, states won, and the popular vote. However, she now claims to lead in the last one, saying Kentucky's results put her ahead in the popular vote total. There's only one small problem. It's a lie. First off, she includes Michigan and Florida, which were disqualified in the first place. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant. Those were the rules all the candidates agreed to adhere to going into the contest. Then there's one other fudging to Clinton's math. She doesn't include the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington because they never released vote totals (thanks to Markos for pointing this out). With those states included, Obama still leads, even with Michigan and Florida's results (via RealClearPolitics).

More than anything, this reveals Clinton's shameless hypocricy and her willingness to say anything for power. She decries the injustice of not counting Michigan and Florida while ignoring other because they use a different primary system and it's convenient to do so. It's downright disgusting. I know it shouldn't surprise me coming from a politician, but I want a leader who can face reality instead of mindlessly continuing with a lost cause. We've had more than enough of that with our current president, thank you very much.

Where I Stand on the Presidential Primaries

2008-05-20T16:15:00.001-07:00

Since I'll probably devote a large number of keystrokes in the coming months to the presidential election, I figured I'd share my thoughts so you know where I'm coming from.

First, I've become a huge supporter of Barack Obama. Early on, I was pulling for John Edwards...until I heard Obama speak the night he lost the New Hampshire primary. The whole thing was and incredible speech, but one line in particular has stuck in my mind:

"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I'll admit, after watching the Republican Party systematically destroy our nation domestically and on the world stage while the American people battled over trivial shit like abortion and gay marriage, I felt like an outsider in an increasingly backwards nation. This country felt less and less like home. But the nation's response to the Obama campaign has been amazing. It has shown that there are vast numbers of people who desperately want to but our country back on the right path.

However, I'm still skeptical that anything can be done. Far too many Americans insist America can do no wrong, and anything is justified if we do it. And far too many Americans simply don't care or don't pay attention.

Nevertheless, as Obama has said, there is nothing wrong with hoping for a better future because it compels us to do the work necessary to realize that future. That's the attitude we need to turn this nation around. Furthermore, the fact that Obama has focused on the issues that truly matter has been incredibly refreshing. He's the first candidate who has ever inspired me to donate to a campaign, and I'm clearly not the first as Obama's online fundraising has shown. I don't know if he'll be able to overcome the ignoramuses, but I have hope, and it seems huge swaths of the American people feel the same way.

As for Hillary Clinton, I was pretty much neutral towards her, but I intended to vote for her if she won the nomination. Never again will I vote for a Republican. However, she showed an appalling sense of entitlement to the presidency and proved she was no better than Bush in the way she surrounded herself with ideologues and sycophants. I probably still would have voted for her, but I would have been torn by the decision. Luckily, the delegate math makes it impossible for her to win at this point, and the superdelegates won't go against the votes of the people.

As for John McCain, I'm sure he would be an improvement over Bush, but he strikes me as hopelessly out of touch with the general mood in the country. Besides, after the sheer criminality of the Bush Administration, I don't think I can will myself to vote for a Republican ever again. Regrettably, I cast my first vote for president for Bush in 2004. I learned firsthand the perils of not paying enough attention, and I won't ever make that mistake again.

Anyway, I just wanted to establish my position on the whole thing since I sat out blogging during the interesting part of the primaries, alas.

My Apologies...

2008-05-20T14:51:00.000-07:00

I'd like to apologize to my readers (if they haven't departed for more reliable realms) for my extended disappearance from blogging. I was hoping to get back at it in earnest when I renamed this blog. However, I became busy with my new job and just didn't feel the desire to blog. It's not that I haven't been interested in the nation's political events for the past few months--I've kept a very close eye on the presidential primary--I just haven't felt compelled to share my thoughts.

That being said, I've settled into more of a routine now and I've been feeling the bug to get back at it. There's just too many things that I feel the need to rant about. Now, I can't guarantee I will post as regularly as I used to, but I just feel like throwing my opinions out there once again. Also, I won't guarantee it will always be discussions on religion, science, and politics, but I'm sure I won't stray too far since that's still where my interests lay.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it.

Huckabee: Make the Constitution Adhere to the Bible

2008-01-15T14:51:00.000-08:00

I don't know what to say about this, but I can't say I'm surprised since it's coming from a former Baptist preacher. Here's a bit from the article at The Raw Story (they even have video if you don't believe me):

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

So basically this bastard came out and said we need to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. What's worse is the nitwits who cheered him for it.

Do these people not realize that favoring no religion in government is the best way to protect all religion? More importantly, do they not realize that freedom of religion is one of this nation's most important principles and an essential component of our liberty?

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, Mike Huckabee becoming president is the worst thing that could happen to this nation. What terrifies me is the fact that this man actually has a chance even after publicly declaring that he would work to deprive us all of an essential freedom. There's so much I could say, but I think the man's words speak for themselves and no rational person should want this potential theocrat in office.

A Word On My Absence

2008-01-03T16:01:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone. I apologize for my absence, but I went on vacation to Cozumel (which I highly recommend, especially if you scuba dive) and then began getting moved into my new place in El Paso, so I have had little time or energy for blogging. However, I am now fairly settled in here and plan on continuing shortly.

For the three of you who actually read this blog, I appreciate your patience.

And They Say Atheism Would Permit Anything

2007-12-13T16:05:00.000-08:00

Just another great example of Christianity in action.

In Niger, the local preachers have been turning their parishoners against young children for the crime of witchcraft. From The Observer:

But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children - naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

Some parents scrape together sums needed to pay for a deliverance - sometimes as much as three or four months' salary for the average working man - although the pastor will explain that the witch might return and a second deliverance will be needed. Even if the parent wants to keep the child, their neighbours may attack it in the street.

Now, I know the vast majority of Christians would find these events abhorrent, but it points to a fundamental problem of religion. We've always heard the argument that without God, anything is permitted. Now, in the most realistic sense, I suppose that would be true. However, human institutions and the general sense of empathy we all have create very real consequences, whether it comes from the legal system or a crushing feeling of guilt for having harmed another. Without God, we have to answer for our crimes in this life, even if it's only to ourselves.

It seems clear the unbeliever can easily turn that standard charge against atheism back towards the faithful. In its basic doctrine (as far as the monotheistic religions are concerned), religion gives you a get out of jail for free card, so long as your crime has been sanctioned by the faith. Even if it hasn't been explicity sanctioned, as long as a person believes he or she is doing God's will, anything is permissable.

The situation in Niger makes an excellent case and point. It seems quite clear these parents feel they are doing God's work when they torture and murder their children for the laughable crime of being a witch. This is something no self-respecting mother would do without the irrational baggage that comes with faith.

What's worse is the preachers getting rich off the hysteria they themselves have created. Do they have no sense of decency? Do they have no respect at all for their fellow human beings? Clearly, this is the second major problem that religious belief creates. Charlatans in positions of religious power find it all too easy to benefit at terrible cost to their unquestioning followers.

It's certainly arguable whether the preachers' motivations came from their faith or merely their greed. However, I think most of us can agree that if these people had not been such slaves to their religion, none of this would have happened.

So my question is, what exactly did faith prevent these people from doing? Besides keeping them from asking much-needed questions, I find myself without any answers.

Huckabee's Medieval Mindset

2007-12-12T08:12:00.001-08:00

Everyday, new bits of information come to light concerning the positions presidential candidate Mike Huckabee took while he was governor of Arkansas. From Think Progress:

In June 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a “statement on the family” that asserted, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Two months later, then-governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full-page ad in USA Today specifically endorsing the Convention’s view on marriage:

You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.

I sincerely hope this and Huckabee's other archaic statements drive all the Republican moderates and idependents towards more rational-thinking candidates. Surely the moderate Republicans can see that Huckabee would lead with the Bible first and foremost in his mind and constitutional considerations would only come as an afterthought. Surely they can see that Huckabee would create a virtual theocracy where only the Southern Baptist version of Christianity would have any real say.

However, I think the progressive bloggers' efforts to bring these sort of facts to light will go a long ways towards sinking Huckabee's campaign by driving away any independent who might have considered him a decent candidate. Furthermore, I doubt any self-respecting woman who isn't deluded by her church would support a candidate who stands behind such a blatant violation of women's rights.

Follow Up On the Religious Shootings

2007-12-11T09:05:00.000-08:00

Over the past day, a clearer picture has emerged concerning Matthew J. Murray, the shooter in Colorado who killed four and wounded five at a missionary center in Arvada and New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Murray had been kicked out of the missionary school in 2002 for mental problems that included hearing voices in his head, which made it immpossible for him to go on the group's mission trip to Bosnia. Eventually, he started sending hate mail to the school where he revealed a deep seated resentment towards Christians in general:

You Christians brought this on yourselves. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.

It's hard to say what he based his hatred on beyond his mere expulsion. Besides his time at the mission school, Murray's immediate family are all deeply conservative Christians, which might have played a role. But I doubt this shooting has much to do with faith. Murray obviously had mental problems that caused him to hold a deep resentment which he eventually tried to resolve through violence. Faith or lack thereof doesn't really factor into the picture.

As expected, pastors have taken advantage of the incident to further their ends. Pastor Gino Geraci of Calvary Chapel South Denver said:

We're taking a journey away from moral responsibility. We live in a culture and society that want to share the blame rather than holding people accountable and responsible for their actions.

And Rev. Andreas Hock, professor of Sacred Scripture at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary said:

Losing sight of God can mean losing sight of the value of human life.

I don't want to stoop to their level and use this shooting to toot the horn of atheism. As I said earlier, faith obviously has nothing to do with it. But I will use these pastors' comments because Christianity does the exact opposite of what they suggest it does. The central tenet of Christian faith is that Jesus will absolve the believer of all his sins, which is just a way of saying that Jesus will free the believer of all moral responsibility, so long as he believes. It does not hold believers accountable for their actions, so long as they're "born again" and put their faith in Christ. Second, this notion that religion is the only thing that allows us to value human life is absurd. If anything, it creates a sense that we are worthless creatures whose only purpose in life is to appease a seemingly indifferent diety, and it clearly segregates people into believers and nonbelievers, where the believers obviously have more worth than the infidels.

No, I don't think religion is the answer to society's problems, especially in this case when you have a young man who hears voices in his head. What he needed was proper medical care, not fantasies.

Click here to read more from The Rocky Mountain News.

Religious Shootings in Colorado

2007-12-09T21:12:00.000-08:00

Earlier today there were two separate shooting incidents at religious centers in Colorado. The first was in a missionary training center in Arvada, a suburb of Denver, where two people were killed. The other was in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs (coincidentally, the one founded by Ted Haggard) where one victim was murdered before a security guard shot and killed the gunman. Police think the two might be related, but it's too soon to know for sure.

Of course, this is no different than the murder of innocent people going about their lives in any other shooting, but it just strikes close to home for me since I went to the New Life Church a couple of times when I lived in Colorado Springs. I found their particular brand of theology distasteful (even before I was an atheist), but I would never wish this upon them, ever. After all, even the biggest theocrat ultimately feels his or her actions are for the greater good. The truly evil are only the inhuman murderers such as the gunman who would indiscriminately murder innocent people. I think we can agree that we're all human and we can only make the world a better place if we all find a way to work together, regardless of our religious views or lack thereof.

My thoughts are with the families with the hopes that they will find the strength to overcome this difficult time.

You Should Probably Cleanse the Blog Readability Test From Your Site

2007-12-09T16:37:00.000-08:00

Charles Arthur at The Guardian has brought to light the fact that the Blog Readability Test so many of us have used is not exactly what it seems. If the site that provides the image ever goes down, it will default to an advertisement for an obscure company that is certainly a proxy. You can edit out the code that would default to the ad (I did when I first posted it because I thought it was annoying).

However, the site it is hosted at, Critics Rant, seems to have no knowledge of the test. It all seems kind of shady to me, so I'm removing it from my blog. If you've utilized the meme as well, you might want to read Arthur's article and see what you think.

H/T to Pharyngula.

Carnival of the Godless

2007-12-09T09:07:00.000-08:00

The 80th Carnival of the Godless is now up at The Jesus Myth. Yours truly made the cut, but there some great essays over there, and I've only just begun. So, if you want to enjoy some great godless thought, go check it out.

Mike Huckabee: An Ignoramous on History

2007-12-06T14:21:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently did an interview with GQ Magazine. He said a lot of theocratic crap that made me wince, but the historian in me just died a little when I read this part:

GQ: Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.

Mike Huckabee: I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

First off Mike, you sure as hell didn't articulate the reason it's important. You just said the standard Conservative Christian line that it will cause the downfall of our civilization because it's happened before. That's nice rhetoric, and I'm sure it works with the ignorantly faithful, but give me one example of a civilization that collapsed because it deviated from what you consider the basic family structure. Furthermore, name a civilization that had our modern concept of family.

DevilsTower at Daily Kos did an excellent job addressing my second challenge to this propaganda:

Was it the many civilizations were marriage was arranged and decided long before children were of marriageable age? Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows? Was it civilizations that allowed siblings to marry? How about first cousins? Could be it civilizations who adopted the silly idea that you should marry for love. Perhaps it was the Mormons who decided to practice polygamy. Perhaps it was those who decided to stop. Or maybe it was the polyandrous cultures in many mountainous or arctic regions.

To start with, "marriage" is merely a word with a culturally defined concept behind it. Committed homosexual couples are already in a "marriage" state on an emotional and philosophical level. Just because you attach the legal term marriage to it doesn't change anything. The stars won't realign, the mountains won't crumble at their foundations, and the seas won't rise and swallow us all. No, homosexuals' serious relationships will just have a legal word attached to them that makes it easier for them to deal with things such as retirement plans and untimely death. Plus, you don't have to recognize it in your church. That's your right. But realize they are already in a state of marriage whether you attach the word to it or not.

But, the fact remains that our modern concept of marriage is exactly that, modern. Before the 20th century it was virtually unheard of that a man and a woman would marry for love. Far more often than not, marriage was used for political reasons to strengthen family alliances. Of course, maybe that's what Huckabee supports, since it is what we find throughout most civilizations at the height of their success. Maybe Huckabee doesn't believe in marriages based on love. After all, that's what led homosexuals to want marriage in the first place. They can't help who they fall in love with.

I seriously doubt Huckabee stands behind arranged marriages, so I'll leave it at that and move on to my other challenge: did any civilization collapse because it altered family structures?

To start with, civilization is a fairly vague term. It can be incredibly broad, such as: Western Civilization. It includes a plethora of societies going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. It's had its difficulties, but it's never completely collapsed and disappeared. The same goes for the other broadly defined civilizations as we see them today. The only large scale civilization that has really collapsed and disappeared was the Meso-American civilzation. However, we know fairly well why it disappeared, and it had nothing to do with family structure. No, it was ravaged by the worst plague in human history and then subjected to a slow genocide at the hands of invading Europeans. I don't think making sure only men and women are "married" would have saved it from either one of those problems.

Perhaps Huckabee means something more specific, focused more on individual nations. Perhaps he sees the United States as its own civilization. Okay then, let's look at a few nations (or entities that resemble nations since the modern concept of the nation-state didn't appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648). To keep this post a reasonable length, I'll only consider the superpowers in history. I say it's a fair truncation since, following Huckabee's line of reasoning, weak nations obviously didn't have strong "family values".

We'll start with the Persian Empire, the world's first superpower. Unfortunately, we know perfectly well what brought about its demise: Alexander the Great. And it wasn't because the Persian family structure had been changed. No, the Macedonian army was simply superior in battle, forcing King Darius III of Persia to flee, bringing about a collapse in his empire.

That leads us to Alexander's Empire, but it only lasted as long as its king. Once he died without an heir, his generals turned on each other for control of the throne. I doubt family values had anything to do with it since the Greeks were comfortable with homosexuality long before Alexander's day.

Next we have Rome. But it didn't collapse until after it became Christian. Obviously, Christian family values didn't save it. Of course, they were Catholic and Orthodox, so that doesn't count for Baptist Huckabee. But looking at the families, they were usually the standard form that Huckabee calls for with a patriarchal hierarchy, but marriage in Rome was arranged to create family alliances, and that never really changed throughout its history. However, that "traditional" family structure probably hurt more than it helped. Towards the end of Rome's existence, it simply didn't have enough soldiers to guard its extensive frontier against a growing number of incursions on all sides. The only thing that really would have saved Rome is more babies, and monogamous societies almost always have lower birth rates than polygamous ones.

Then I can point to the Mongols. But they were brought down by internal stuggles due to their highly tribalized political structure. Plus, field cannons made cavalry archers, the most potent weapon in the Ancient and Medieval worlds, obsolete, removing the Mongol Empire's only advantage.

Then we come to the British Empire, but its civilization still exists, just in a liberalized form without its colonies. Even then, Britian didn't allow gays to marry before it started losing its colonies, so there's clearly no correlation there.

Then I suppose that just leaves us with the Soviets and the US. Since Huckabee is a Republican, I'm sure he knows it was Ronald Reagan who single-handedly brought down the Soviets. Even though that's not entirely accurate, it was obviously economic reasons tied to the communist market system that brought the USSR down and not gay marriage.

As for us, we'll decline eventually. But it won't be because homosexuals get a legal term attached to their relationships. No, it'll probably come when China supplants us as the richest nation in the world. Saying that civilizations collapse because they allow gay marriage is worse than saying the decline in pirates causes global warming. At least the latter has a correlation.

Update: If you'd like to learn more about Roman family values over time, Richard Saller from the University of Chicago has an excellent essay on the subject. Then, like today, conservative Roman politicians decried the decline in Roman family values and harkened back to a mythical era that never actually existed. So, before I get accused of poor historical scholarship, there were cartainly Roman writers who spoke of a decline in family. But we have the same thing today, and, unless you think the Cleaver family was real, it just doesn't correlate with reality. Similarly, the evidence doesn't support conservative Roman propaganda.

Romney Doesn't Get It

2007-12-06T11:22:00.000-08:00

If you've been following the presidential campaigns at all, you know that Mitt Romney has recently been spending considerable time defending his Mormon faith, on the grounds that it shouldn't matter. In a speech earlier today he said:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

On that point, I have to agree. It shouldn't matter what a candidate's religion is as long as he doesn't let it interfere with his job so he or she can stay fair to all the nation's citizens.

However, Romney goes on to show that he has no idea on how to maintain that fairness when he lambasts separation of church and state:

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

I'm going to look past the fact that secularism is, by definition, not a religion.

However, Romney wants to have his cake and eat it too. Secularism is the only way to ensure that no religious liberties are trampled upon. If Romney refuses to adhere to secularism when governing, then what religious philosophy does he propose to utilize? Governing through any type of religion convictions will immediately infringe on other religious beliefs, due to their mutually incompatible doctrines. Secularism is the only way to maintain any sort of fairness.

And I'm not talking about oulawing any sort of belief system. I'm not even talking about atheism. That's not what secularism is about. People are free to have their beliefs. I want to be very clear on that. But people can't have their beliefs uninfringed so long as the government rules through specific religious ideologies. No matter how vague, these religious ideologies will only appeal to a fraction of the nation's citizens. Only a secular government that rules through reason and clear evidence can be truly fair. After all, beliefs are subject to interpretation. Facts are undeniable.

The only way Romney's faith would become a non-issue is if secularism were the name of the game in our government. However, since he seems intent on pushing religion into our governing process, his Mormonism will never cease to matter.

Although, he'd be a far better choice than Mike Huckabee. The last thing we need is a former Baptist minister in the White House. If you think Bush has been bad, he'd be nothing compared to the theocratic crap that Huckabee would bring to the executive branch.

Anyway, you can read more on Romney's speech at CNN.

Message to Chuck Norris: You Suck

2007-12-04T21:22:00.000-08:00

There was a time when I enjoyed the Chuck Norris jokes that made their rounds on the internet. But now I just can't help but think about how much his faith has made him an ignorant bastard. If you want to take a walk down Stupid Lane, just read his column at World Net Daily.

To get an idea of how rediculous he is, he's a few paragraphs from his column "How to Outlaw Christianity":

Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963.

Today many more antagonist groups and individuals to theism abound, and they are using every means possible for global proliferation – from local government to the World Wide Web. Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with distain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. In fact, right now, they are coalescing and rallying at least 5 million of their troops to mount counter offensives to Christianity.

For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists' overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans.

Okay Chuck, why can't athiests share their thoughts with our fellow citizens? There are hundreds of thousands of Christian organizations that do the exact same thing for their causes. If you want to be consistent, you'd want them to cease their efforts as well. Of course, you agree with them because you want a Christian theocracy imposed on this country.

Second, you are laughably hysterical. For someone who is reputably so tough, you seem downright terrified of a few academics whose only "militant" actions have been to publish books, give speeches, and take part in debates. I wish we were as powerful as you seem to think we are. In reality, we're a loosely connected group of people who can hardly agree on anything. It's the price we pay for thinking for ourselves.

As for thinking for ourselves, it shouldn't surprise you that so many people are leaving the faith. If you ever actually read the Bible, you'll find it's a self contradictory work hoplessly caught up in first century thinking. I'm amazed it's taken people so long to look at the more consistent philosophies with better morals written in the 2000 years since.

Finally, just because you think athiesm and secularism is immoral doesn't mean jack. I think Christianity is immoral, but I certainly don't want to outlaw it. I just want Christians to stop forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. These "counter offensives to Christianity" are simply efforts to remove the special status the religion has within our government, a status it received by default, not merit. Just because most of the founding fathers were Christian does mean the rest of us have to be. You don't want atheism imposed on you, so you'd damn well better expect that I don't want Christianity imposed on me. It's called freedom, get over it. And it's real freedom, not the kind where only fundamental Christians are allowed to do what they want at everyone else's expense.

Wow, Just....Wow

2007-12-04T21:16:00.000-08:00

As a history major, this just makes me shudder in terror:

How does someone like this end up on television? Just goes to show it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

I could correct her errors, but I don't want to insult your intelligence.

Now I'm Not Sure I Want to Live Here

2007-11-30T05:37:00.002-08:00

I'm currently moving to my new place of residence in El Paso, Texas. It seemed all nice and good until I stumbled across the disturbing news that the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, Chris Comer, has been forced to resign because she forwarded an email annoucing a speech by Barbara Forrest, who is a philosopher of science and traces ID's connections to creationism.

Why was it so terrible to announce a speech by a reknowned scientist? Because a Baby Jesus lover who is offended by reality is the Chair of the State Board of Education. Dr. Don McLeroy is a well known advocate of Creationism and ID, and in September he put in place a policy where the TEA must remain neutral on evolution and ID. Obviously part of the new effort to quietly diminish evolution since creationists have been unable to force it out overtly.

Now, what was the offending email that cost Comer her job? Here's a copy of it (from The Austringer):

***

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Attached:

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking
on “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her
talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in
the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost
is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony
in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the
history of the “intelligent design” movement. Forrest is a Professor of
Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at
Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE’s board of
directors.

For further details, visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/
Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc

Eugenie C. Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc

NCSE’s work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp

***

Hmm...I don't know if that warrants a firing. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I wonder if Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, will talk about his. After all, this woman actually lost her job, unlike the Creationist hacks featured in the movie who simply couldn't get their papers published because they didn't have anything scientific in them. But I doubt it. Ben Stein is blinded by religion too, and the fact that supporters of evolution are having it worse wouldn't work to well in Stein's tale of Intelligent Design persecution.

What's worse is the TEA's proposed facilitator. (Sounds almost like a comic book villian, doesn't it...The Facilitator)

The State Board of Education (SBOE) has a proposal before it to hire a "facilitator" or "standards writing consultant" to write the standards document after workgroup members consisting of master teachers and university professors have initially written the initial standards document and after additional university professor experts review that standards document. One wonders why the initial writing and review are necessary when the facilitator will have complete freedom to write whatever he or she wants at the conclusion of the process.

One does wonder. Perhaps it's a way to put something in place that none of those experts would approve of? What's the point of even having all those experts? You might as well fire all of them too and just have a Bible to consult instead. After all, it has all the knowledge one really needs, right?

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but I certainly plan of living far from here before I have any kids.

For more information, read this report on the firing and information on the facilitator, both from the Texas Citizens for Science.

This Guy Is Great

2007-11-29T08:47:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's just nice to hear unrestrained rants against religion. One of my favorite sources is Pat Condell's series of videos on YouTube. Here's a sample:

I love this guy, and I see nothing disrespectful in being truthful. The fact remains that most religions are simply interpretations of antiquated stories that don't tell us anything useful beyond providing a window on the culture that wrote them. No one should feel hesitant about pointing that fact out.

Anyway, Condell has a whole bunch of videos on YouTube, and I encourage you to check them out.

Planet Atheism

2007-11-26T12:43:00.001-08:00

Like my old blog, The Iron Chariot is now a member of Planet Atheism. If you've never heard of it, Planet Atheism collects the recent posts from several contributing atheist blogs and reposts them in one easy to find location. So if you're a big fan of rationality and free thinking, I suggest out check it out.

The Golden Compass Controversy

2007-11-24T13:00:00.000-08:00

It hasn’t received much attention in the media, but religious groups are raising a stink over the upcoming fantasy film The Golden Compass. The complaints aren’t with the movie itself, but with the fact that it might lead children to read the book the movie is based upon. What’s wrong with the book, you ask? It’s written by Phillip Pullman, a well-known atheist, and the book expresses a number of anti-religious views. These themes have been mostly watered down for the film, but that hasn’t stopped the Catholic league from launching a crusade against the film. On their website, they state:

The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books.

First, I just want to say that censorship is the worst possible way to deal with criticism. Often, criticism addresses a legitimate concern. If people simply ignore that criticism, the problem will continue unabated. Furthermore, criticism can be the result of a misunderstanding that can never be corrected if the criticized side refuses to take part in any dialogue. Unfortunately, refusal to hear criticism is an essential part of religion, so it’s not unexpected.

Second, what’s the problem with “selling atheism to children”, as Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League, put it? Donahue obviously has no qualms about promoting theism to children and criticizing atheists. If Donahue’s faith is so weak that he believes a fantasy story will destroy the next generation’s belief, maybe he needs a stronger worldview.

I say, let the criticisms be out there. I don’t mind the religious being critical of atheists. In fact, I encourage it because it leads to fruitful discussions, which allows me to better define my positions and rethink my conclusions on different issues. Nothing is above critique. It’d be nice if the believers would be as open. Of course, I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. To perpetuate itself, religion must be rigid, lest reason and logic reveal the kinks in the armor.

As for The Golden Compass, I doubt it will be much of a success with the knowledge of its atheistic origins in the public awareness. I was in Barnes and Noble last week when a woman in front of me tried to return the book saying, “It was written by an atheist who hates God.” Considering this country is mostly Christian, I’m sure there’s a large body of people out there just like her who will refuse to see the film. Even atheists are upset over the producers watering down the book’s original themes. While the success of the movie itself doesn’t matter to me, I do worry that it will set an unfortunate precedent. If it flops, it could be a long time before we see another movie with godless themes. Film studios would not want the financial risk when making something like The Passion of the Christ is a guaranteed money maker. But only time will tell.

DefCon Shuts Down

2007-11-24T05:50:00.000-08:00

This morning I just recieved the unfortunate news that one of my favorite organizations, The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, is shutting down due to a lack of funding.

DefCon provided an essential service, raising public awareness of the Religious Right's efforts to subvert the Constitution. It was especially important when the Republican Party was at the height of its power before the 2006 elections.

Even though we've found a bit of relief from those frightening days, the Religious Right is certainly not going away. The pendulum will eventually swing the other way again, and we will need organizations like DefCon to do what they did.

Luckily, there are still a number of organizations keeping up the good fight including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (Americans United, for short) and the Secular Coalition for America. There are others out there, but those are the major ones fighting for our essential freedom of and from religion.

Obsess Much?

2007-11-21T07:36:00.000-08:00

Kieran Healy from Out of a Crooked Timber has brought to light an amusing, yet extremely telling set of statistics from Conservapedia.

If you don't know what it is, Conservapedia was created as a counter to Wikipedia, because of Wikipedia's supposed "liberal bias". I think it just goes to show that Stephen Colbert wasn't too far off when he said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." So to fix this, a group of conservatives decided to create an online encyclopedia with their mythical version of reality.

Anyway, if you go to Conservapedia's Statistics page, you'll find the following:

I hate to make generalizations, but it seems obvious that the subject of homosexuality is an obsession for many conservatives. Of all the legitimate problems in this country conservatives could focus their efforts towards, they choose the non issue of homosexuality because they seriously believe that if homsexuals get married, it will somehow destroy everyone else's marriage. It makes no sense. It should be obvious that a marriage is solely dependent on the relationship between the two people involved. It doesn't matter what happens between other people you will never meet.

Unfortunately, I think it's just a symptom of a greater problem. Americans are deathly afraid of the wrong things and politicians are able to use this to their advantage. For example, terrorism is a threat, but Republicans act like it is the greatest existential threat our country has ever faced. I'm sorry but jihadists will never be able to destroy this country. They simply don't have the means. The only enemy that ever had that capability was the Soviet Union, and it's gone now. In the same way, Conservative Christians are terrified of the prospect of homosexual marriage for irrational, religious reasons, and Republicans use it to their advantage, which only reinforces the problem.

I say, let the gays get married and let's focus on something that is actually hurting the country. We'll all be a lot better off for it.